If the draft is random, it certainly has shown a lot of luck to have fallen in the favor of the NBA for the last five years. I predicted NOH would "win" the lottery this year, but here's some reasoning for the last five:

Basti wrote:Seriously. The draft is not rigged. There's way too much at stake for the parties involved to risk rigging it these days.

Isn't there just as much at stake by making sure that the top picks go to the teams where they will generate the most money for the NBA longterm?

I doubt it's rigged, but do any of us believe Stern is above doing that?

Yes for the NBA as a whole, there might be just as much at stake.

However, why would the majority of teams agree to the rigging? Remember, each team has one or two represents in the room when the lottery is held. As an example, I'd imagine it would have been pretty difficult for Stern and his buddies to convince other teams to agree to the Clippers getting Griffin some years ago. Regarding the Griffin pick, by the way, wouldn't it have made much more sense to give the 1st pick to Oklahoma? Griffin was playing for Oklahoma State University and would have given the Thunder an exceptional trio (not that they had one with Harden anyway). You see how one can spin the rigging idea the other way, too?

Also, and I think it's the most compelling argument, there are lawyers from Ernst & Young around when the lottery is held. Why would a neutral third party, a multi-billion dollar worth company, agree to ruin its reputation for this? There's where there's way too much at stake for one party.

Basti wrote:Seriously. The draft is not rigged. There's way too much at stake for the parties involved to risk rigging it these days.

Isn't there just as much at stake by making sure that the top picks go to the teams where they will generate the most money for the NBA longterm?

I doubt it's rigged, but do any of us believe Stern is above doing that?

Yes for the NBA as a whole, there might be just as much at stake.

However, why would the majority of teams agree to the rigging? Remember, each team has one or two represents in the room when the lottery is held. As an example, I'd imagine it would have been pretty difficult for Stern and his buddies to convince other teams to agree to the Clippers getting Griffin some years ago. Regarding the Griffin pick, by the way, wouldn't it have made much more sense to give the 1st pick to Oklahoma? Griffin was playing for Oklahoma State University and would have given the Thunder an exceptional trio (not that they had one with Harden anyway). You see how one can spin the rigging idea the other way, too?

Also, and I think it's the most compelling argument, there are lawyers from Ernst & Young around when the lottery is held. Why would a neutral third party, a multi-billion dollar worth company, agree to ruin its reputation for this? There's where there's way too much at stake for one party.

Economically, there is a misperception that each owner is trying to out-compete each other financially, when more and more, they are making money jointly. That's Stern's #1 goal - to help the League, and hope that as the league prospers, it raises all boats. I don't put much stock in league reps being there, or Ernst and Young, because they could all be in on it together, making back-room deals. they can say, "Oh, you don't like the way we do things? You're welcome to open your mouth, and take your basketball team elsewhere, and not be in the NBA any more."

As for Griffin to the Thunder, I tend to believe they use these picks to help the teams that need it most. OKC was generating revenue because they were new, and they already had Durant. How much more money could Griffin have generated for the NBA if he had joined that team? However, if Griffin could legitimize the Clippers, that's an NBA gold mine.

Lastly, let me say that I feel ugly using "after the fact explaining" like it has value. This type of reasoning is the opposite of logic, and often leads to horrible conclusions. People use it to subjectively make their points. I bring it up here though because I can't get myself to believe 100% that the lottery is rigged -- or that the lottery is fair!

For example, if it's fair .. why do they insist on doing it privately? It would be one of the biggest nights in NBA television!

Anyway, I'm interested to hear others opinions on this .. I remain undecided.

I think Chicago getting Brand was a bit of a surprise when they needed a shot in the arm. Orlando getting the #1 the year after Shaquille...

There's a lot of instances where it appears peculiar. Then again they said last year that there were a number of teams that had back stories to make it appear like it was rigged. Nets move, Kings arena, etc.

shrink wrote:Economically, there is a misperception that each owner is trying to out-compete each other financially, when more and more, they are making money jointly. That's Stern's #1 goal - to help the League, and hope that as the league prospers, it raises all boats. I don't put much stock in league reps being there, or Ernst and Young, because they could all be in on it together, making back-room deals. they can say, "Oh, you don't like the way we do things? You're welcome to open your mouth, and take your basketball team elsewhere, and not be in the NBA any more."

Yes, you might be correct that the team owner do not just think about their own team but it doesn't make sense whatsoever for each one to say "Hey, screw my team, let's think of the league". Nobody would agree to that at the detriment of his own team. Particularly if it doesn't seem to even out for some owner, like Taylor. If he had agreed to getting screwed over some ten years ago (or say in the Shaq draft which would be a perfect example) wouldn't it make sense to compensate him after he agreed to miss out on Shaq AND Alonzo? Or take any other draft. We're still waiting for any kind of compensation. If this scenario would have happened and I was Taylor I'd blackball the league, that's for sure.*

There's no logical reason for any team owner to agree to those shenanigans at the detriment of their own team.

*It just sprang to my mind that there are some owners, executives etc. who might have a huge grudge against the league, Stern, another owner etc. Don't you think they'd threaten to tell the media and all that? Do you think this is worth it?

If you don't put too much into Ernst & Young having representatives there I don't know what to tell you. They are among the most trusted accountant companies worldwide generating/being worth billions of dollars. They don't screw their reputation because they could be in a backroom deal that generated, what, probably not much more than 50 million dollars? Would you say that's enticing enough for a multi-billion dollar worth company?

shrink wrote:As for Griffin to the Thunder, I tend to believe they use these picks to help the teams that need it most. OKC was generating revenue because they were new, and they already had Durant. How much more money could Griffin have generated for the NBA if he had joined that team? However, if Griffin could legitimize the Clippers, that's an NBA gold mine.

I agree with you that getting the Clippers on the NBA map is a goldmine but it's not like the LA market hadn't a team with some global icons before. The Clippers could have used top picks every year until recently, anyway.

shrink wrote:Lastly, let me say that I feel ugly using "after the fact explaining" like it has value. This type of reasoning is the opposite of logic, and often leads to horrible conclusions. People use it to subjectively make their points. I bring it up here though because I can't get myself to believe 100% that the lottery is rigged -- or that the lottery is fair!

For example, if it's fair .. why do they insist on doing it privately? It would be one of the biggest nights in NBA television!

Anyway, I'm interested to hear others opinions on this .. I remain undecided.

Why they insist on doing it privately? Because the actual process is completely boring. I can't exactly remember how the actual drawing works but from what I read they start with the 1st pick and then go down to the 14th pick. Who actually cares about the picks beyond the 3rd or 4th pick? Pretty much everyone would turn off the TV after the top 3 picks are official.

Great post Basti -- let me talk about just one point though .. maybe I'll find time to address the others. your post certainly merits it!

Basti wrote:

shrink wrote: For example, if it's fair .. why do they insist on doing it privately? It would be one of the biggest nights in NBA television!

Anyway, I'm interested to hear others opinions on this .. I remain undecided.

Why they insist on doing it privately? Because the actual process is completely boring. I can't exactly remember how the actual drawing works but from what I read they start with the 1st pick and then go down to the 14th pick. Who actually cares about the picks beyond the 3rd or 4th pick? Pretty much everyone would turn off the TV after the top 3 picks are official.

Whatever manner we would choose to use in the future to do it, the NBA only picks the top three teams in the lottery, the rest all follow the order the teams fell in the standings. They actually name the picks in reverse order, but anyone that knows the lottery realizes the order, and when a team is skipped over, you know they won a Top Three pick. You are right though, that the majority of people really only care about the top pick, or maybe the top three. It's those top three players in college that are known by more than just basketball fans.

People still like the entertainment of a lottery, and many TV stations broadcast them as lead-ins to their own programming (such as news). There is a sense of excitement and being the first ones to see something - something sports fans that buy tickets are well aware of.

Personally, I think broadcasting a lottery would be fantastic, exciting television. Spend the money to make a couple hundred balls, each with one of the fourteen team's logo, and let people watch them bouncing in the giant container. Start with the winner, then pull those first three in order -- if a ball comes up with a team that's already been picked, just pick again.

Besides the additional drama, it would dispel the belief that many people feel that the NBA lottery is rigged.

shrink wrote:Economically, there is a misperception that each owner is trying to out-compete each other financially, when more and more, they are making money jointly. That's Stern's #1 goal - to help the League, and hope that as the league prospers, it raises all boats. I don't put much stock in league reps being there, or Ernst and Young, because they could all be in on it together, making back-room deals. they can say, "Oh, you don't like the way we do things? You're welcome to open your mouth, and take your basketball team elsewhere, and not be in the NBA any more."

Yes, you might be correct that the team owner do not just think about their own team but it doesn't make sense whatsoever for each one to say "Hey, screw my team, let's think of the league". Nobody would agree to that at the detriment of his own team. Particularly if it doesn't seem to even out for some owner, like Taylor. If he had agreed to getting screwed over some ten years ago (or say in the Shaq draft which would be a perfect example) wouldn't it make sense to compensate him after he agreed to miss out on Shaq AND Alonzo? Or take any other draft. We're still waiting for any kind of compensation. If this scenario would have happened and I was Taylor I'd blackball the league, that's for sure.*

There's no logical reason for any team owner to agree to those shenanigans at the detriment of their own team.

*It just sprang to my mind that there are some owners, executives etc. who might have a huge grudge against the league, Stern, another owner etc. Don't you think they'd threaten to tell the media and all that? Do you think this is worth it?

If you don't put too much into Ernst & Young having representatives there I don't know what to tell you. They are among the most trusted accountant companies worldwide generating/being worth billions of dollars. They don't screw their reputation because they could be in a backroom deal that generated, what, probably not much more than 50 million dollars? Would you say that's enticing enough for a multi-billion dollar worth company?

I would imagine any owner has legal liability, that if they open their yaps, they don't just lose their team ($500 mil or so), but their other assets may be at stake in the civil court that would arise from the damage to the NBA.

I am very familiar with Ernst & Young through my (tiny) life outside of RealGM. Their #1 job though is to serve their client. While I know they bring out the envelope, what exactly are they promising? That the lottery is fair to NBA fans? Or they did precisely what the NBA told them to? I can't remember. Anyway, their participation never really held a lot of weight with me, but maybe you're right. I'll need to listen more closely at the next lottery -- which it looks like we'll be visiting.

shrink wrote: For example, if it's fair .. why do they insist on doing it privately? It would be one of the biggest nights in NBA television!

Anyway, I'm interested to hear others opinions on this .. I remain undecided.

Why they insist on doing it privately? Because the actual process is completely boring. I can't exactly remember how the actual drawing works but from what I read they start with the 1st pick and then go down to the 14th pick. Who actually cares about the picks beyond the 3rd or 4th pick? Pretty much everyone would turn off the TV after the top 3 picks are official.

Whatever manner we would choose to use in the future to do it, the NBA only picks the top three teams in the lottery, the rest all follow the order the teams fell in the standings. They actually name the picks in reverse order, but anyone that knows the lottery realizes the order, and when a team is skipped over, you know they won a Top Three pick. You are right though, that the majority of people really only care about the top pick, or maybe the top three. It's those top three players in college that are known by more than just basketball fans.

People still like the entertainment of a lottery, and many TV stations broadcast them as lead-ins to their own programming (such as news). There is a sense of excitement and being the first ones to see something - something sports fans that buy tickets are well aware of.

Personally, I think broadcasting a lottery would be fantastic, exciting television. Spend the money to make a couple hundred balls, each with one of the fourteen team's logo, and let people watch them bouncing in the giant container. Start with the winner, then pull those first three in order -- if a ball comes up with a team that's already been picked, just pick again.

Besides the additional drama, it would dispel the belief that many people feel that the NBA lottery is rigged.

Hey, I completely agree with you that the lottery should be televised, although I don't think it would be that exciting for the aforementioned reasons. I kinda like your idea how to make the lottery more TV friendly. I could dig that and it would silence all the "the lottery is rigged"-believers. I don't think it will happen, unfortunately, though.

shrink wrote:

Basti wrote:

shrink wrote:Economically, there is a misperception that each owner is trying to out-compete each other financially, when more and more, they are making money jointly. That's Stern's #1 goal - to help the League, and hope that as the league prospers, it raises all boats. I don't put much stock in league reps being there, or Ernst and Young, because they could all be in on it together, making back-room deals. they can say, "Oh, you don't like the way we do things? You're welcome to open your mouth, and take your basketball team elsewhere, and not be in the NBA any more."

Yes, you might be correct that the team owner do not just think about their own team but it doesn't make sense whatsoever for each one to say "Hey, screw my team, let's think of the league". Nobody would agree to that at the detriment of his own team. Particularly if it doesn't seem to even out for some owner, like Taylor. If he had agreed to getting screwed over some ten years ago (or say in the Shaq draft which would be a perfect example) wouldn't it make sense to compensate him after he agreed to miss out on Shaq AND Alonzo? Or take any other draft. We're still waiting for any kind of compensation. If this scenario would have happened and I was Taylor I'd blackball the league, that's for sure.*

There's no logical reason for any team owner to agree to those shenanigans at the detriment of their own team.

*It just sprang to my mind that there are some owners, executives etc. who might have a huge grudge against the league, Stern, another owner etc. Don't you think they'd threaten to tell the media and all that? Do you think this is worth it?

If you don't put too much into Ernst & Young having representatives there I don't know what to tell you. They are among the most trusted accountant companies worldwide generating/being worth billions of dollars. They don't screw their reputation because they could be in a backroom deal that generated, what, probably not much more than 50 million dollars? Would you say that's enticing enough for a multi-billion dollar worth company?

I would imagine any owner has legal liability, that if they open their yaps, they don't just lose their team ($500 mil or so), but their other assets may be at stake in the civil court that would arise from the damage to the NBA.

I am very familiar with Ernst & Young through my (tiny) life outside of RealGM. Their #1 job though is to serve their client. While I know they bring out the envelope, what exactly are they promising? That the lottery is fair to NBA fans? Or they did precisely what the NBA told them to? I can't remember. Anyway, their participation never really held a lot of weight with me, but maybe you're right. I'll need to listen more closely at the next lottery -- which it looks like we'll be visiting.

Yes, the current owners probably have legal accountability but what about former owners or other former highly ranked executives. There are just too many people in the know to keep it a secret.

I would imagine that their highest priority is to serve their clients but I don't think that includes partaking in fraud while risking their reputation globally. If it somehow leaked to the public that they were involved I'm sure the majority of their other clients would instantly jump the ship. Unless they, Ernst & Young, routinely do bush league stuff to all their clients, which I highly doubt they do, they won't make an exception for the NBA.

Not gonna lie, if the Magic will get the #1 pick I'd be super freaking furious. I'd still don't think the draft is rigged but how lucky could one franchise be in terms of lottery luck if that were to happen.

What makes you think the Suns would win it? Just because they lost Nash?

Not gonna lie, if the Magic will get the #1 pick I'd be super freaking furious. I'd still don't think the draft is rigged but how lucky could one franchise be in terms of lottery luck if that were to happen.

What makes you think the Suns would win it? Just because they lost Nash?

Nash, yeah. Plus they could use an infusion of young talent more of just a gut feeling though. They don't really have a centerpiece on that team.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt

Basti wrote:Not gonna lie, if the Magic will get the #1 pick I'd be super freaking furious. I'd still don't think the draft is rigged but how lucky could one franchise be in terms of lottery luck if that were to happen.

On the bright side, there's not a O'Neal/Howard this year if they do win it.

tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.

Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

[RCG] wrote:Nash, yeah. Plus they could use an infusion of young talent more of just a gut feeling though. They don't really have a centerpiece on that team.

Dejavu?

Suns also own LAL's unprotected first, which is currently tied for the 10th pick. Somewhat like two years ago, when the Cavs owned the Clippers unprotected 1st, which was the 8th best odds, but ended up being the winner.

tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.

Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

[RCG] wrote:Nash, yeah. Plus they could use an infusion of young talent more of just a gut feeling though. They don't really have a centerpiece on that team.

Dejavu?

Suns also own LAL's unprotected first, which is currently tied for the 10th pick. Somewhat like two years ago, when the Cavs owned the Clippers unprotected 1st, which was the 8th best odds, but ended up being the winner.

Ruh roh.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt